JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A., assisted by Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised his grievance against the rejection of his application for reimbursement of medical bills by the State Finance Department and the Treasury Officer, respondents No.1 & 5 respectively here-in. 3. The petitioner is a retired Judicial Officer. In the year 2019, he went on a family tour and during travelling, he fell seriously ill and consulted with the Doctor and on an emergent situation he was compelled to be treated at the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad on 18.02.2019 having patient registration No.1900010115. The petitioner also received further treatment at Kolkata on 25.03.2019, 26.03,2019, 18.11.2019, 13.11.2019, 03.12.2019 and 05.01.2020. Similarly, the wife of the petitioner also had suddenly fallen ill in Kolkata and got treated in the Private Consulting Room of Prasida Ayurvedic Clinic, Kolkata on 03.12.2019 and 05.01.2019. Since both the petitioner and his wife were on tour outside the State of Tripura and suddenly had suffered illness, they could not obtain referral certificate from the State Standing Medical Board. However, after returning to State, the petitioner submitted bills for reimbursement to the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura Agartala. The said bills were forwarded to the Secretary of the Law Department, Government of Tripura by District and Sessions Judge under communications dated 05.12.2019 and 24.02.2020 (Annexure-3 & 4 to the writ petition). It is pertinent to mention that 3(three) numbers of medical reimbursement bills were sent to the office of the respondent No.5, i.e. the Treasury Officer by the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura Agartala vide communication dated 05.12.2019, but the respondent No.5 raised objection due to non-furnishing of referral certificate. On receipt of the communication for reimbursement of medical bills submitted by the petitioner, the Secretary, Law Department forwarded the same to the Finance Department, Government of Tripura, respondent No.1. However, the Law Department under communication dated 13.07.2020 addressed to the District & Sessions Judge informed him that three numbers of medical reimbursement bills of the petitioner were returned as per communication dated 09.07.2020 issued by the Finance Department with a copy to the petitioner. However, the Law Department under communication dated 13.07.2020 addressed to the District & Sessions Judge informed him that three numbers of medical reimbursement bills of the petitioner were returned as per communication dated 09.07.2020 issued by the Finance Department with a copy to the petitioner. Again, the Law Department made communication on 02.09.2020 and informed the District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura Agartala that 5(five) numbers of medical reimbursement bills of the petitioner were returned by the Finance Department vide memorandum dated 14.11.2017 (Annuxure-6 to the writ petition). Finally, the petitioner was informed by respondent No.4, Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide his communication dated 08.10.2020 that the Finance Department, Government of Tripura had regretted the medical bills of the petitioner, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court for redress. 4. From the above facts and circumstances, it is surfaced that while the petitioner and his wife were on tour outside the State of Tripura, the petitioner had fallen ill at Hyderabad and had to be treated at the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology. They came to Kolkata where under compelling circumstances, they also got treated at Kolkata. In a nutshell, due to such sudden illness, only to save their lives, they had to receive treatment at the Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Hyderabad and in Kolkata. In my opinion, what has transpired from the statements made in the petition and submitted by the learned counsel, it would be an absurdity for the petitioner and his wife to return to Agartala for the referral certificate from the competent medical board. Human life is precious. Article 21 of the Constitution of India enshrines the right to life which includes the valuable right to health. The present case is not the case where the petitioner at his own whims went to Hyderabad and Kolkata for his treatment. The sudden illness, the petitioner suffered in Hyderabad, was unforeseen and unexpected. Similar was the case of the wife of the petitioner who suddenly suffered illness in Kolkata and got treated to save her life. Thus, the emergent situations compelled the petitioner and his wife to get treated in Hyderabad and Kolkata respectively, for which the petitioner could not obtain referral certificate from the State Standing Medical Board. 5. This Court while dealing with similar circumstances in Case No. WP(C) NO.895 of 2018 titled as Sri Subal Das Vs. The State of Tripura & ors. Thus, the emergent situations compelled the petitioner and his wife to get treated in Hyderabad and Kolkata respectively, for which the petitioner could not obtain referral certificate from the State Standing Medical Board. 5. This Court while dealing with similar circumstances in Case No. WP(C) NO.895 of 2018 titled as Sri Subal Das Vs. The State of Tripura & ors. had observed thus:- “31. It should be kept in mind that the paramount consideration will be “emergency and its exigencies” considering a particular moment or situation faced by a patient, who may be an employee or family members of the employee. At the same time, this Court requests the State executives in the higher-ups of the administration to personally supervise these matters and not entirely depend upon the notes given by the staffs in the lower ranks, and furthermore, the officers should keep in mind the paramount considerations as are indicated above.” 6. Further, to determine the emergent and immediate exigencies, the authorities concerned must be rationale to each and every separate and variable circumstances following Wednesbury’s Principle of Reasonableness so that it does not shock or hit the conscience of the Court, in addition, with utmost humane touch. 7. Here, the petitioner and his wife were on tour and as emanated it was not their purpose to get treated in any of the hospitals during that relevant period. It was under sudden illness they suffered during the tour. In the considered view of this Court, that was emergent situation for which the petitioner and his wife were compelled to receive treatment in those places. The illness they suffered was unforeseen, which circumstances the respondents had failed to take into account while regretting the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of the medical bills, he spent for his treatment in Hyderabad and in Kolkata and such action hits the conscience of this Court. The respondents ought to have made enquiry before regretting the application. 8. The respondents should keep in mind that rejection of claim for reimbursement of medical bills for not obtaining referral certificate of State Standing Medical Board should not be applied as a straight jacket formula. The respondents are under obligation to consider under what circumstances their employees get treated at a hospital outside the State of Tripura while dealing with the applications for such claims of bills. 9. The respondents are under obligation to consider under what circumstances their employees get treated at a hospital outside the State of Tripura while dealing with the applications for such claims of bills. 9. For the reasons discussed and stated here-in-above, I direct the respondents, particularly, the respondents No.1 and 5 to reimburse the medical bills as forwarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura the respondent No.2 as well as the Law Department, Government of Tripura within a period of 3(three) months when the respondents shall receive a copy of this order from the petitioner or the learned counsel appearing for the State. 10. However, it is open to the State-respondents to verify the medical bills. Departments concerned may also take assistance of the State Medical Board to determine the emergent situation faced by the Government employee compelling him/her to rush to hospital for treatment. In the instant case also the State-respondents may do the same, if they so desire, but in this eventuality, the entire process has to be completed within a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed in the above terms.